OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 10:22:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?  (Read 11667 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2011, 10:38:29 AM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2011, 10:40:46 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2011, 10:47:18 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2011, 10:55:11 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 24, 2011, 11:03:55 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 24, 2011, 11:18:34 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #96 on: June 24, 2011, 11:23:22 AM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.

What I mean is, when you say "Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own" are you saying that the Catholic Church will not require others to relinquish their own (teachings) as a condition for full communion?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #97 on: June 24, 2011, 11:27:02 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto

can be said to represent the thinking of many-but-not-all Catholics.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #98 on: June 24, 2011, 11:28:48 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2011, 11:48:20 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2011, 11:50:22 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2011, 11:56:39 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.


And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2011, 12:02:13 PM »


And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.


I see what you mean.  Clarity and honesty are tough stands to take on both sides.  I pray we do well these next few rounds and perhaps we'll be able to see more clearly in a couple more cycles.  I really don't see that either side is operating in bad faith yet...could happen based on a number of factors, but I hope and pray not.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2011, 12:13:13 PM »

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2011, 12:22:59 PM »

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.

There are, at least initially, pretty tight channels for our formal engagement with Orthodoxy, and their's with the Catholic Church.

I don't disagree with what you are saying to a point,  but none of the layers of people who are watching the process are in any kind of real position to make the call of "good faith" or not.  Only those who are agreeing formally to and through the dialogue with respect to why they are there and what they hope to accomplish can do that fairly.  There is a line of authority in all of it.

After that we are dependent on what they tell us.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2011, 12:25:35 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2011, 01:00:26 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2011, 01:12:14 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2011, 01:25:32 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2011, 01:33:16 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #110 on: June 24, 2011, 02:04:49 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2011, 02:52:28 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc

That was a terrible waste and it was wrong to do...very wrong.  But these are not the dialogues that will resolve the schism.  Some of the most bitter words are Orthodox against Orthodox, Catholic against Catholic.  We dare not predicate the unity of the Church on the frailty of mankind.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2011, 02:57:49 PM »

Knowing Metropolitan Maximos and other members of the Orthodox representatives on the North American Dialog as I do, I can assure you that they would be grievously insulted if you were to claim that they were acting in bad faith. The Catholic representatives on that commission would be the first and the loudest to defend their Orthodox colleagues from such nonsensical rhetoric.  Sad
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 24, 2011, 03:02:29 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

For many good reasons, most having to do with the geopolitics of the 15th century, we would be well advised to forget much of that ill-fated 'council.'

As I have said over and over again, to no response I might add, the world in which we live in precludes a 'sneak' attack reunion agreed upon by either 'side' in any hypothetical council of reunion. Any such council would NEVER be convened in our modern age of Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour cable news, blogs, etc... UNLESS the terms of union were preagreed upon after years of public scrutiny. The Bishops of neither of our churches are crazy men who act out of emotion and they would assure the outcome before they tried. That's why there has been fifty years of dialog and probably fifty or more to come before we approach that point.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2011, 03:06:14 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #115 on: June 24, 2011, 04:05:38 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 24, 2011, 04:08:36 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 04:15:49 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #117 on: June 24, 2011, 04:13:48 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
It's a silly question which you have asked before and have received the answer:
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them

I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?

No problem with secular statues outside of a liturgical setting.   Russia is awash in statues of many important and historical personages.

These statues run around all four sides of the newly rebuild Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.  The statues depict important historical figures in Russian history, both laymen and bishops.  They are not intended for veneration.


They are also the only original part of the building: Stalin housed them in a museum and IIRC a subway station instead of destroying them like the icons.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2011, 04:14:16 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?

They are probably 'bas relief' rather than true statues.  Besides, we're not like the Romans, everything with us isn't always what it seems!  Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #119 on: June 24, 2011, 04:15:07 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.

IIRC, the council of Ravenna didn't go off well, and that was only a few years ago.

The last time they met was in Vienna, no?  Didn't go anywhere
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 04:25:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 24, 2011, 04:17:55 PM »

Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:


Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 24, 2011, 04:30:26 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.


You don't have a reiteration either, nor do you have a contradiction and there was plenty of opportunity to contradict this:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=37156

    * 6/29/2010
    * Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Benedict XVI met with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Rome for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. He affirmed his hopes for continuation on the path undertaken in ongoing work of the Joint Commission that is addressing the crucial topic of the 'Role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church during the first millennium'.

VATICAN CITY (AsiaNews) - Relations between Catholics and Orthodox are " characterized by sentiments of mutual trust, esteem and fraternity", an essential foundation for dialogue to reach "significant progress".

In meeting with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Rome on the occasion of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the importance that the Catholic Church gives to the work of the Joint Commission for Dialogue and the trust that he places in the fruits of said commitment.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #122 on: June 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:
His "Very Rev." doesn't outrank His Eminence.

Your eyes must be dim.  Let me help you.

Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.  and contrary to the spin here, Moscow was just demonstrating that primacy is a privelege, not a right, and it does not come with the authority to act outside conciliarity. The Churches had fashioned a solution to the situation in Estonia, and the Phanar has decided to renig on it, although it lacks the authority.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #123 on: June 24, 2011, 05:16:20 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: June 24, 2011, 06:46:45 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #125 on: June 24, 2011, 06:49:10 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
High Petrine? Did Marduk climb into your brain? :p

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: June 24, 2011, 06:59:18 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie. [/size

The Orthodox are dialoguing in accordance with the principles which you are able to study in message 83
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493

Other Orthodox Churches have made more or less identical statements.

You will note that the position of the Russian Church in its 2000 statement is in fact simply a re-presentation of the Church of Constaninople's.  This evidences that Orthodoxy's two most influential Churches are in agreement and presenting  their position openly.  You may all read it freely.

Accusations from Roman Catholics, openly or by implication, that the Orthodox may be acting deceitfully will be sure to kill the dialogue.  Your choice.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: June 24, 2011, 07:07:56 PM »

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...


Mary,

Since I know you are aware of the events at Florence, I would say your statement is a great example of disinformation and bad faith. Angry

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

"However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 07:34:50 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: June 24, 2011, 07:12:34 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

To that the response of any Orthodox Christian would be:  Remember Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Will you be dismissive of him?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: June 24, 2011, 07:19:21 PM »

But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Read all about it!

catholic answers forum bars orthodox dicussion

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #130 on: June 24, 2011, 07:27:03 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #131 on: June 24, 2011, 08:09:32 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: June 24, 2011, 08:18:09 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.

I recall a Zenit message which says it was rejected by the Vatican for promoting ecclesiology unacceptable to the Catholic Church.

This rejection is politely presented in the Vatican's introduction to the document, probable out of deference to Cardinal Kasper.

See
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 24, 2011, 09:38:30 PM »

The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.

I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism.

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table and content themselves with the WCC.

Mary


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #134 on: June 24, 2011, 10:43:14 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.

What you have to understand is that all of that is okay because it's This Rock. It wouldn't be all right, of course, if a traditional Catholic had said those things, because it would mean that he/she was un-ecumenical and maybe even intolerant.

Sorry if my bias is showing.   Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.244 seconds with 72 queries.